Mike, calm down and go take a walk or something. You are starting to sound like Stewie and pretty soon you are gonna "feel compelled to leave LuLa" ...

And then where woud we be?

It will take much more than this but I'm am leaving this thread - you make my point more eloquently than I can.

Quote

What was it again that you said about sarcasm?

Touché - used against a gratuitous comment not someone trying to contribute and have a reasonable discussion.

I don't like bullies or people who are only too happy to rub salt into wounds. I will now leave you both to have the last word, don't hesitate to be as personally disparaging as you can ....and yes I will 'get real' and 'get over it'.

Forums are only valuable if people post to them, lurkers contribute nothing.This forum has been around a very long time and many of us have been taking part for years. Without those long term contributions LuLa would be nothing.It's not about scoring points, it's about adding to the discourse.

Great piece of dissembly. First the implication that I'm attacking ALL LuLa posters or posts combined with the 'lurker/newbie' tag - brilliant.

I find many posters (including notably Slobodan) to have given great information and insight and for that I thank them and freely acknowledge my lack of similar contribution. In this case a poster felt he had to leave and was then mocked after doing so. Never mind the quality feel the width.

You are right though it's not about scoring points, it's about adding to the discourse. I don't think anything positive will come out of this one so let's all move on?

I think your words "attacked" and derided" are over the top. He chose to leave in circumstances of his own choosing and he bowed out of the thread and re entered again of his own choosing. Possible lessons can be learned mostly about being thick skinned and giving and taking?

I have yet to frequent a forum where a noob is not asked to explain or demonstrate what they are talking about. Yes, sometimes it makes your ears burn, but others are often trying to gauge your level of interpretation.

Professionally I am frequently "called on it", and not always politely. The more sophisticated the audience, the more likely you are to be challenged. And it's worth noting that being wrong (or maybe just out of step) is only a failure if you don't learn from your situation.

But I'm a noob here and this is deep water. lot's of very experienced and knowledgeable folks... so maybe I'm wrong...

I'm late to this party, but so what. First, I don't have or use LR. I've happily used Canon's DPP to convert RAW from my XSi, but find for problem images (in particular, underexposed), DxO does a better job than anything I've been able to get from DPP plus Noiseware (my favorite noise reducer).

This shot is from my XSi at ISO 1600 (its highest setting) and underexposed three stops for an effective ISO 12,800, and converted with DxO 7 using default settings (I may have manually set the white balance; can't remember). The first image is full frame, reduced to 800 pixels wide. The second image is a cropped area from the 100%-size file. I'm particularly impressed with the retained colors after all that pumping up of the brightness. The books actually are the colors displayed, or at least very close.

I'm late to this party, but so what. First, I don't have or use LR. I've happily used Canon's DPP to convert RAW from my XSi, but find for problem images (in particular, underexposed), DxO does a better job than anything I've been able to get from DPP plus Noiseware (my favorite noise reducer).

This shot is from my XSi at ISO 1600 (its highest setting) and underexposed three stops for an effective ISO 12,800, and converted with DxO 7 using default settings (I may have manually set the white balance; can't remember). The first image is full frame, reduced to 800 pixels wide. The second image is a cropped area from the 100%-size file. I'm particularly impressed with the retained colors after all that pumping up of the brightness. The books actually are the colors displayed, or at least very close.

I think we might have lost sight of the purpose of raw editors/developers.

I use them to primarily set White Balance, Black Point, White Point. The newer raw editors now allow for distortion control,global and local contrast control, noise removal, sharpening etc. etc..

A comparison between editors that do not have the same feature set, doesn't always (if ever) make sense.

To make my point more clear. The file that I provided was made with my new Olympus OM-D along with an even newer lens the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. It was part of a series of test shots and definitely does not show any particular artistic or photographic merit.

My camera/lens combination is part of DxO's database. It provides the DxO raw editor with sensor and lens information that allows the editor to automatically adjust for disortions, CA, noise removal, sharpening to compensate for lens softness, lens vignetting etc. etc. Adobe's camera/lens distortions feature does not include any Olympus or Panasonic products, many of the distortion information for cameras/lenses that Adobe lists are provided by photo enthusiasts and the quality can only be viewed as dubious at best. So I could not reasonably demonstrate a superiority in one editor or the other. They are different products, with different capabilities. Lightroom and Camera Raw may be able to coax an equal edit, but it would take much more sliding of levers and re-adjustmesnts.

My demonstration was to show how easily DxO took a miserable file and developed it to the point that it could be handed off to Photoshop for final improvements. There are many things that DxO did automatically that Lightroom or Camera would find difficult or nearly impossible to match.

Distortion information, for Olympus and Panasonic camera/lens combination are included as metadata in the the raw file and as such are used by LR and ACR in the background.The same is for CA but for the Panasonic combos only.

I've attached two screen shots, one of Adobe Camera Raw with the "Enable Lens Profile Corrections" box checked, the "Setup" box is checked to "Auto".

The other screen shot is of DxO version 8, which under "Optical Correction" the "Chromatic aberrations" is checked and the option is set to "Auto".

The DxO screen shot shows how the program cleaned up the file.The ACR screen shot shows that no matter that Olympus and Panasonic provides distortion information (metadata) with each file, Adobe doesn't seem to process the information.

DxO processes the information with just a checkmark, I leave that option always checked so there's no effort on my part. I've yet to have to correct DxO's process decisions with regards to the "Optical Corrections" panel.

Since you obviously didn't read the preceding posts let me explain that I was trying to show that ACR/LR does not make use of the lens distortion metadata that Olympus and Panasonic provides in their respective files.

To show an example of a file format that ACR/LR utilizes the metadata please note the attachment that shows ACR's response to a NEF file.

OK I'll bite as I don't understand your point. I have a Panasonic GH 2. In Lightroom you cannot select Panasonic (or Olympus) as apparently lens corrections are built in. Likewise, in ACR selecting default, custom or auto gives rise to a 'cannot load or select a profile' message again because profiles are supposedly built in.

Quote

I've attached two screen shots, one of Adobe Camera Raw with the "Enable Lens Profile Corrections" box checked, the "Setup" box is checked to "Auto".

The other screen shot is of DxO version 8, which under "Optical Correction" the "Chromatic aberrations" is checked and the option is set to "Auto".

Having said that, the comparison with DxO seems unfair as it compares the full DxO processing pipeline with an unprocessed ACR shot. Surely the correct comparison would be with the a fully processed shot using each program (i.e. all LR or ACR panels)?

My point was that from the attached examples it is impossible to see (visually, in the image itself) if the LR applied distortion correction or not. All we are able to see is the presence of uncorrected CA. My second arrow pointed out the Color panel, where you are supposed to check "Remove Chromatic Aberration."